The teen charged in the death of a staff member at the Lincoln Hills juvenile prison in 2024 is asking for a new decision on whether his case should be moved to juvenile court. 

The teen, JH (the Examiner is not using his full name because his case is potentially being heard in juvenile court) turned 18 this year but was 16 at the time of the death of Corey Proulx after an altercation at the Lincoln Hills youth prison in Irma, Wisconsin. 

According to the criminal complaint, JH obtained a cup of a liquid substance believed to be soap from another youth and threw it at a staff member before punching her repeatedly. 

He then went outside into a courtyard where other youth were present, followed by Proulx, the complaint says. When Proulx approached him, he struck Proulx multiple times. Proulx fell to the ground, struck his head on the pavement and was later declared brain dead. 

The complaint says that JH said he had built up aggression toward a female staff member because he believed she was abusing her power and treating him unfairly. He said he planned to attack her and had asked another youth to obtain the soap from staff. 

JH pleaded guilty/not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect to a count of second-degree reckless homicide in connection with Proulx’s death, the Associated Press reported in January, as well as guilty to a count of battery by a prisoner.  

He “entered into a plea agreement that partially resolves the case involving the sad and tragic death of (Proulx),” his attorney Aaron Nelson said in an email to the AP. “(JH), who has had a life filled with trauma and suffering, realizes that nothing will compensate the victims for their loss and suffering.” Nelson filed a motion for his client to be allowed to withdraw his pleas. District Attorney Kristopher Ellis said the state is not objecting to the motion. 

Nelson made the motion in February, two weeks after the Wisconsin Court of Appeals released a decision in the case of a juvenile who was charged in the death of his mother when he was 10 years old. The Court of Appeals decision may lead to a new determination over whether or not JH’s case should go to juvenile court. Nelson wrote in the motion that the previous pleas are “null and void” due to the Court of Appeals decision. 

Online court records show a motion hearing in the case is scheduled for Wednesday, May 6, and another hearing is scheduled for June 3. 

When juveniles are alleged to have committed certain crimes, such as first-degree intentional homicide, their cases first go to adult criminal court in Wisconsin. An accused juvenile can try to transfer their case to juvenile court through the reverse waiver procedure. 

State law lays out three criteria for a reverse waiver determination. The juvenile must prove that all three are more probably true than not:

1. If the juvenile is convicted, the juvenile could not receive adequate treatment in the criminal justice system.
2. Moving the case to juvenile court would not depreciate the seriousness of the offense. 
3. It is not necessary to keep the case where it is to deter the juvenile or other juveniles from committing the violation that the juvenile is accused of. 

The Court of Appeals found that these criteria are unconstitutional to the extent they don’t require circuit courts to consider the unique attributes of youth identified by the United States Supreme Court. 

The criteria don’t require the impacts of the juvenile’s youth to be considered before determining whether they are tried as an adult, the decision says. 

“Because children’s characters are not well formed, and because children are more capable of change, ‘a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed,’ the decision says.

They don’t give a juvenile a “meaningful opportunity” to prove that they are not “one of the ‘rare and unfortunate cases’ that warrant treating the juvenile as having the same culpability as an adult,” the decision says. 

The Court of Appeals decision may lead to JH receiving a new reverse waiver determination, which would decide whether his case should be moved to juvenile court. 

Nelson didn’t comment for this article about the chances of JH’s case being moved to juvenile court, but he spoke about the Court of Appeals decision in the Mann-Tate case of a boy who was charged with the shooting death of his mother when he was 10 years old. Nelson is also one of that boy’s attorneys at the trial court level. 

In Nelson’s experience, successful reverse waiver determinations are extremely rare. The standard for success is incredibly difficult to meet, and he’s aware of two cases in the state where this has happened, he said.

Nelson said that the appeals court decision in Mann-Tate gives juveniles a better chance of getting their cases moved to juvenile court, but he’s not sure how much better.

“What I don’t know is whether that improves it from a 1% chance to 2% chance, or some greater impact than that,” Nelson said. “I think it’s going to be very dependent on every individual case, and every individual judge.”

In addition, the state has appealed the Court of Appeals decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which has not yet said whether it will take the case. 

As of February, a jury trial is set to begin in JH’s case later this year, on Oct. 21, and online record of an April 29 scheduling conference states that the court was to “remain holding the October dates.” A status conference is scheduled for Aug. 20. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Nearly 50 years after a strike that ended union representation at the Madison Capital Times, the newspaper’s eight newsroom employees announced last week they have joined a  union and are seeking a contract.

Ashley Rodriguez, a features writer and spokesperson for the union drive, said in an interview that the staffers have asked Publisher and President Paul Fanlund, Editor Mark Treinen and other newsroom managers to voluntarily recognize The NewsGuild-CWA as their union.

“We were received very professionally and cordially,” Rodriguez said.

Asked Tuesday about his response to the union petition, Fanlund said in an email message, “No comment at this time. Will let you know when we have something to say.”

Rodriguez said the union organizing campaign wasn’t in reaction to any particular developments at the newspaper.

“This isn’t about one thing, this isn’t about one person. This is about exercising our rights and knowing that we’re stronger together,” she said.

Since its conversion in 2008 from a daily evening paper to a digital outlet with a weekly free tabloid edition, the Capital Times now has formally adopted its longstanding nickname, the Cap Times.

Rodriguez said the union effort was in keeping with the news organization’s heritage as a champion of progressive values in Madison since the Capital Times was founded in 1917 by William T. Evjue, a former managing editor and business manager for the Wisconsin State Journal.

“He was angered by the State Journal’s editorials attacking Robert M. ‘Fighting Bob’ LaFollette, who he considered a hero,” states a history the Capital Times posted that was archived in 2007.

“The history of the Cap Times is to be a progressive voice — the voice of Madison, representing the voices of people who aren’t heard,” said Rodriguez. On its editorial pages, the paper has been a strong supporter of labor unions.

“I think this has been like a desire to embody how we see our role as reporters within our own system,” she said. “If we’re going to embody the mission of William Evjue, championing people’s rights and being the voice of the community, that has to exist internally as well.”

Rodriguez joined the staff in January 2025, but she said reporters had been interested in joining a union for years before she arrived, and helped produce the energy that led her and her colleagues to formally organize in the last year. Staff support for the union has been unanimous, she said.

“For us just the biggest thing is that local journalism is so vital to a healthy democracy and strong communities and the reporters that deliver that news just want to live in their communities and feel like their work is being valued as well,” Rodriguez said.

Since the 1940s, the Capital Times and the Wisconsin State Journal have shared business operations, forming a partnership, Madison Newspapers Inc., which owned the presses and conducted other business operations for both papers.

In 1977, MNI installed new printing technology, laying off typesetting employees and cutting wages of the remaining printing staff. The printing unions struck, joined by the newsroom unions of both newspapers.

The striking employees put out an independent paper, first weekly and later daily, the Madison Press Connection, which lasted until 1980, and the strike was settled in 1982 with a $1.5 million payment to the strikers. The unions were all decertified.

Editorially, the Capital Times “had always supported the labor movement,” said Phil Haslanger, one of the reporters who joined the strike. Up to that point, when the Newspaper Guild represented newsroom employees, “there had always been spirited negotiations between the Guild and, at that time, William Evjue, but they found a way to make it work.”

That made the dispute especially controversial. “Here you had a paper that was progressive, liberal, involved in this very complicated labor situation,” Haslanger said.

Haslanger was one of five employees who went back to the paper as part of the settlement agreement. Under the editor, Elliott Maraniss, “There was a real effort on the part of the Cap Times at the end of the strike to gracefully reintegrate those of us who had been in the strike,” he said.

In 2008, the Capital Times went from being a daily evening paper to a primarily online outlet, first with two free weekly tabloid editions, later reduced to one.

The union campaign also echoes the success of campaigns that have led to unions at several digital news organizations, including Wisconsin Watch and ProPublica. 

Both the Cap Times and the State Journal work out of the same building on Madison’s Southwest Side. Rodriguez said the unionizing effort involves only the staff of the Cap Times, owned by the Evjue Foundation, and not the employees of the State Journal, which is part of Lee Enterprises.

“We hope that management voluntarily recognizes us,” she said. “We think that recognizing the union would be in line with carrying out the values of the Cap Times.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — Get off the train at Union Station, walk outside and gasp at that iconic view of the Capitol dome in front of you. 

Cross the street and the first thing you run into is a construction site surrounding walled-off Columbus Circle. On the wall is a huge poster of President Donald Trump wearing a hard hat (and a coat and tie).

“Thank you, PRESIDENT TRUMP,” the sign says.

That’s just the start of what a tourist will encounter as they sightsee in the heart of the nation’s capital. Or these days, the nation’s capital as brought to you by Donald Trump.

The Trump reminders are all over. Walk the tourist walk from the Capitol down and around Pennsylvania Avenue, past the White House and on to the Lincoln Memorial and it’s clear who’s in charge.

Whether or not this is affecting tourism is unclear. Destination DC, a nonprofit organization that markets the area as a global tourist destination, doesn’t keep month-to-month data. It found in 2024, before the Trump boom, a record 27.2 million people visited the city.

“Tourists who are pro-Trump will be drawn to his eponymous sites. Those who oppose him will not. Most tourists will pay no attention to his projects but will enjoy all the historic and exciting venues and exhibits in Washington,” said Barbara Perry, professor in Presidential Studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center 

She said Trump’s propensity to “destroy, rebuild, construct, and name numerous sites and institutions for himself is most unusual.”

Trump likenesses 

Trump detailed his plans in a March, 2025, executive order, “Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful.”

“Its highways, boulevards, and parks should be clean, well-kept, and pleasant,” he said of the nation’s capital. “Its monuments, museums, and buildings should reflect and inspire awe and appreciation for our Nation’s strength, greatness, and heritage. Our citizens deserve nothing less.” 

Previous incumbent presidents’ pictures were usually confined to 8-by-10 portraits hanging in post offices or deep inside other federal buildings, as they were careful not to splatter their names and likenesses so publicly.

“Typical presidents want to avoid looking arrogant by honoring themselves while in office or even after—except for their presidential libraries, starting with FDR. They usually feel humbled if a Navy ship, for example, is named for them while they are extant: Bush I and Ford come to mind,” Perry said of former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford.

Both served in the Navy and saw combat in the South Pacific.

Democrats are furious about the Trump makeover. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, calls Trump’s actions “narcissism” and is pushing the “Stop Executive Renaming for Vanity and Ego Act.”

“Donald Trump doesn’t get to slap his name on any public institution he chooses. We don’t have kings or dictators in America, and this legislation stops him or any future sitting president from creating monuments to glorify themselves,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

The bill is likely to go nowhere in the Republican-run Congress.

So for now, tourists can stroll around the Mall and see how Trump has tried to transform the nation’s capital.

Starting at the Capitol and heading south down Constitution Avenue until it splits off to Pennsylvania Avenue, here goes:

Albert Pike statue

Status: Installed at Judiciary Square, about four blocks from the Capitol.

Details: “The only public sculpture in DC to commemorate a Confederate general,” says the DC Historic Sites team website. Pike was a slave owner and a senior officer in the Confederate Army.

The memorial was “toppled and burned on Juneteenth of 2020, as protests continued across the country in response to the murder of George Floyd,” the website says. Floyd was a Black man killed by a white policeman in Minneapolis, sparking protests around the country.

Last year, the Trump administration had the Pike statue restored and placed at its present location. 

The action was part of an executive order Trump issued in March 2025. He ordered a review of memorials or statues that had been “removed or changed to perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history, inappropriately minimize the value of certain historical events or figures, or include any other improper partisan ideology.” 

The order also affected the Smithsonian Institution, which Trump said “has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology.” 

Trump banners on federal buildings

Status: Huge banners with Trump’s face hang from the Judiciary and Labor Departments.

Details: “American Workers First” says the Labor banner, with Trump’s vastly enlarged face atop the saying. Another banner features President Theodore Roosevelt. 

The banners, which cover almost three stories of the building, are visible from both heavily-trafficked Constitution and Pennsylvania avenues.

About six blocks away, on Pennsylvania Avenue at the Justice Department — which a few years ago investigated Trump for possible crimes — there’s a new, three-story banner where he looks down at the street atop the saying “Make American Safe Again.”

When the Labor banner went up, then-Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer told Trump about it at a Cabinet meeting, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

“Mr. President, I invite you to see your big, beautiful face on a banner in front of the Department of Labor because you are really the transformational president of the American worker,” she told him.

Bonus sighting: As you walk along Pennsylvania Avenue, don’t miss another “Thank You, President Trump” banner hanging on a construction wall across from the National Gallery of Art near 4th Street.

White House ballroom

Status: Walk up Pennsylvania Avenue starting at the 1500 block and you’ll see the White House East Wing is gone. It’s a rubble-laden construction site now, where Trump is trying to build a 90,000 square foot ballroom with a military installation underneath. The project is to be privately funded, though Senate Republicans are seeking $1 billion for security in an immigration bill.

Details: The project is embroiled in a still-evolving legal battle. The April 25 assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where a gunman threatened the president and top officials, may be changing minds.

Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Montana,  last month introduced legislation to authorize the ballroom. “A President of any party should be able to host events in a secure area without attendees worrying about their safety. This is common sense. Let’s get it done,” he tweeted.

Last week, Justice sought to have the lawsuit dismissed. “This (ballroom) project will ensure that events like the horrific attack on Saturday night do not happen again,” it argued.

Reflecting Pool

Status: Keep walking toward Constitution Avenue. You’ll see the Reflecting Pool between the World War II Memorial and the Lincoln Memorial. Renovations are underway and expected to be completed by July 4. The pool is being cleaned and painted blue.

Details: The pool has often been criticized for being dirty and leaking. 

Trump’s effort is going a step farther than others who have launched renovation and cleaning projects. He said the project will cost $2 million, far less than other recent refurbishing efforts, according to his TruthSocial website.

“It was filthy dirty and it leaked like a sieve for many years,” Trump said in a video posted to the site. 

He’s having it painted “swimming pool blue,” a color that appalls many preservationists.  

Kennedy Center

Details: The city’s premier cultural center is about a 20-minute walk away. Perhaps no Trump change has provoked more outrage among his Washington critics than his renaming of the capital’s cultural center.

He said during a visit to the center in March 2025 that “it needs a lot of work,” adding it should have better seats and more “Broadway hits.”

The president overhauled its governance, creating a board that named him the center’s chairman, changed programming to suit his tastes, and announced the center would close this summer for two years for renovations.

Status: While the center’s board renamed the site the Trump-Kennedy Center, Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, an ex officio member of the board, has taken legal action in federal court seeking to stop the name change, saying only Congress can do so. The case is pending.

Monumental Arch

Details: Trump wants to build a 250 foot arch — taller than the nearby Lincoln Memorial and the tallest in the world — at the traffic circle at the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery on the Virginia side of the Potomac River. The circle leads to the Memorial Bridge across the Potomac, connecting to the Lincoln Memorial.

Status: The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, packed with Trump appointees, approved the arch’s concept design in April. 

The arch, the commission said in its approval letter, “would contribute positively to the honorific landscape of Washington, D.C., for many generations.” It requested more information for the next phase, including plans for better pedestrian access and sculptures.

Court battles await, notably from a group of Vietnam veterans and others. 

They say the arch would distort the clear view from the cemetery to the Lincoln Memorial, as well as disrupt the symbolism of the bridge, designed to join the North and South.

Off the usual paths

Go away from the main tourist routes and there’s yet more evidence of the Trump rebranding. The United States National Institute of Peace is now the Donald J. Trump National Institute of Peace. The change is meant “to reflect the greatest dealmaker in our nation’s history,” said a State Department tweet.

Then there’s what tourists won’t see.

“Visitors who take the garden tour of the White House this spring will miss the beautiful Rose Garden outside the West Wing and the Jackie Kennedy Garden outside the East Wing, of blessed memory,” said Perry. “Both gardens, planned by the Kennedys, plus the East Wing itself have been obliterated by the incumbent.” 

The Rose Garden, the White House says, “was turned into a patio with roses lining the perimeter, developing a space dedicated to hospitality and entertaining. Today, the Rose Garden is used to host many guests of the president for events and dinners.” 

East Potomac Golf Course

While the East Potomac Golf Course isn’t right on the main tourist route, it’s just off to the side on an island not far from the Jefferson Memorial, with a view of the Washington Monument. The Trump administration has reportedly wanted to close and then revamp the historic site. Preservationists and local folks are furious.

Reports say he wants to convert it to a championship golf course — one that some think will make it an exclusive club, instead of the current affordable public setup that’s popular with locals. NOTUS wrote that the National Park Service is scheduled to start landscaping.

The links currently have two nine-hole courses, an 18-hole par 72 course, miniature golf, a driving range and a restaurant. 

The D.C. Preservation League and two local residents Sunday asked a District Court judge to halt any Trump project. 

“Trump is taking a public park away from the American people while spending their hard-earned taxpayer dollars to build a private, elite club from which he’d personally profit,” Democracy Defenders Fund Executive Chair Norm Eisen said in a statement.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes on Monday did not stop the project, saying reports about the course’s overhaul did not provide enough evidence for her to act, but she warned that if she sees that certain renovations are underway she could reconsider.

National Mall Superintendent Kevin Griess said Monday there were no plans to begin renovation work but a safety assessment was underway, The Associated Press reported.

WASHINGTON — The alleged White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooter was indicted by a grand jury Tuesday on four federal charges, including attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump and assaulting an officer or employee of the United States with a deadly weapon.

The three-page indictment alleges 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen, of California, “knowingly and by means and use of a deadly and dangerous weapon” forcibly assaulted, intimidated or interfered with an unidentified U.S. Secret Service agent who was hit with one bullet in his protective vest while working a security checkpoint outside the annual dinner. The agent was uninjured.

The indictment does not specify whether Allen fired the shot that hit the agent.

Allen was also indicted on transporting a firearm over state lines with intent to commit a felony, and using, brandishing or discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. 

Shotgun, pistol and wire cutters

The indictment specifies Allen transported a 12-gauge pump action shotgun with 45 rounds of ammunition, and a .38 caliber semi-automatic pistol with 55 rounds of ammunition.

Government prosecutors in a court filing prior to the indictment alleged Allen also had on him “two knives, four daggers, multiple sheaths, multiple holsters, needle nose pliers, (and) wire cutters.”

The Department of Justice initially charged Allen on three of the grand jury indictment counts, with the exception of assaulting a federal officer or employee.

Allen is scheduled to be arraigned in federal district court Monday in Washington, D.C.

He faces up to life in prison if convicted of attempting to kill the president.

Black-tie dinner

Allen allegedly rushed a security checkpoint one level above the Washington Hilton ballroom on April 25 where Trump, Vice President JD Vance and several Cabinet officials were among thousands of journalists, government officials and celebrities attending the black-tie event that dates back a century.

Shortly before he ran through a magnetometer, with a long gun in hand, at 8:40 p.m., Allen sent an email to friends and family explaining he intended to target “administration officials … prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest.”

Trump, first lady Melania Trump and Cabinet members all safely evacuated the ballroom. 

The Secret Service agent, whose vest protected him from gunfire, is referred to in court filings as V.G. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told reporters April 27 that a ballistics investigation had not yet been completed, and would not answer whether Allen fired the bullet that hit the agent.

V.G. fired five rounds from his service weapon in Allen’s direction, but did not hit the suspect who fell to the ground and sustained minor injuries, according to a signed affidavit from law enforcement filed in court April 27.

Trump publicly shared photos on his social media platform Truth Social the day following the dinner of a shirtless and handcuffed Allen face down on the hotel carpet Saturday night.

The leader of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement admitted that he had never even heard of some of the countries his agency has been deporting immigrants to.

“Now we are actually removing people to countries that I didn’t even know existed,” Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said during a panel discussion at the 2026 Border Security Expo in Phoenix, speaking of the third country deportation program in which the administration has sent immigrants to African nations they have no ties to. 

Lyons added that the third country deportation program has been “a huge game changer” in implementing President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda. 

Lyons was one of a series of Trump administration speakers, including “border czar” Tom Homan, who spoke Tuesday, and interim U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, who will be giving the event’s keynote speech on Wednesday. 

Lyons, who will be resigning at the end of this month, made the comment during a “State of the Border” panel discussion. Last year, Lyons used the session to declare that ICE’s goal was to deport millions of people with the efficiency that Amazon delivers packages. 

During last year’s event, Homan and other speakers told the military industrial complex representatives in the crowd that the Trump administration is depending on the private sector to implement its mass deportation agenda. 

That message remained largely unchanged this year, though Lyons and others also took aim at the public perception of the enforcement actions which have led to nearly two-thirds of Americans saying ICE has gone too far. 

Homan claimed that those who work for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ICE and similar agencies have been “vilified by the media” and members of Congress, taking particular offense to comments made by elected officials comparing their actions to Nazi Germany. 

Homan said that ICE is just “enforcing the laws” written by members of Congress and called those remarks the “ultimate insult.” 

The rampant use of violence by immigration agents, including the shooting deaths of two American citizens in Minneapolis earlier this year, has been well documented on social media and in the press.

Homan also went on to falsely claim that ICE has not arrested individuals in churches or at hospitals. There have been multiple reports of recent immigration enforcement activity at churches as well as at hospitals. The Trump administration in 2025 rolled back federal protections that designated hospitals as protected areas where ICE could not do enforcement actions. 

On those enforcement actions, Homan said that more are coming. He said he had been speaking with Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who has agreed to hire more deportation officers. 

“You ain’t seen shit yet,” Homan said to applause and cheers from the crowd. “This is going to be a good year.” 

Homan also claimed that New York will be seeing more ICE agents due to a proposed law that would ban police in the Empire State from entering into 287(g) agreements with ICE. Such agreements leverage local resources to do the investigative legwork for federal immigration agents and increase deportation rates. 

“We’re going to flood the zone. You’re going to see more ICE agents than you’ve seen before,” Homan said of New York if they pass such a law, claiming that it would make the state less safe and make it harder for ICE to do its job. “You forced us in this position.” 

During the “State of the Border” panel in which Lyons participated, officials lauded the Trump administration for letting them “do the work” and touted the low number of illegal border crossings that have occurred under the second Trump administration. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott also spoke directly to “any illegal aliens out there.” 

“We’re going to go find your entire family, your entire network. Anybody you spoke to on the phone. We’re going to take out that entire network,” Scott said, adding that one arrest at the border can lead to multiple arrests inside the United States of other individuals. 

Both Scott and Lyons also shot back at a question asked by a member of the audience who asked for them to respond to reporting by ProPublica that found more than 170 U.S. citizens have been arrested by immigration agents.

“We don’t arrest U.S. citizens, we arrest criminals. Period,” Scott said, adding that any U.S. citizen they do arrest is likely a criminal and that they are overseen by the Office of the Inspector General and FBI. Lyons made a similar statement. 

The Trump administration has gutted the OIG and DHS itself has reportedly been obstructing the work of the OIG in recent months. ICE has also arrested U.S. citizens during enforcement actions who were often later released without being charged with a crime. 

A small group of protesters showed up to the event Tuesday. Among them was Democratic U.S. Rep. Yassamin Ansari.

On the show floor, vendors hawked their wares to Border Patrol agents, Homeland Security Investigations agents and local law enforcement that were seen by the Arizona Mirror walking the floor. 

A large majority of this year’s vendors focused on camera platforms, some meant to provide persistent surveillance and others meant to be placed at ports of entry to scan faces in cars in real time. 

Also present were a number of vendors aiming to integrate artificial intelligence with workbook systems or camera platforms. 

Two of the most prevalent forms of tech at the expo this year were drones and technology to counter them. 

But it wasn’t just surveillance technology and military grade tech meant for the border at the expo. 

One piece of equipment shown to the Mirror was the “Upper Hand Glove” by On Point Solutions. It is a wearable metal detector in the form of a glove meant to streamline the metal detection process. 

Also present at the expo were companies looking to cash in on transporting detained immigrants as well as housing them. 

The Mirror examined the list of companies set to be in attendance to highlight some of the key trends as well as noteworthy companies seeking the attention of the government officials.  

Some have ties to Trump and his allies, such as Andruil Industries, which is tied to Trump ally Palantir.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans released a roughly $70 billion spending package Monday night that will keep Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol operating for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term without any of the new constraints Democrats have demanded.

The legislation also includes $1 billion “to support enhancements by the United States Secret Service relating to the East Wing Modernization Project, including above-ground and below-ground security features.”

Trump, who had the East Wing of the White House bulldozed to make way for his $300 or $400 million ballroom project, had said it would be funded by private donors and not taxpayers. White House officials have said the ballroom is critical for national security when top officials are gathered, following an April 25 incident in which a gunman opened fire at a dinner at the Washington Hilton attended by Trump.

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement the panel “is taking action to help provide certainty for federal law enforcement and safer streets for American families.” 

“We will work to ensure this critical funding gets signed into law without unnecessary delay,” he added. 

Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said in a statement the package shows “Republicans are ignoring the needs of middle-class America and instead funneling money into Trump’s ballroom and throwing billions at two lawless agencies.”

He noted the Department of Homeland Security has more than $100 billion from Republicans’ signature tax and spending cuts package it hasn’t spent. 

“Throughout this process, Democrats will continue to show the American people that we are for bringing down costs, making it easier to get ahead, and building an economy where families thrive and billionaires pay their fair share,” Merkley said. “It is clear that the country has had enough of the Republican ‘families lose, billionaires win’ agenda.”

Billions for immigration enforcement

The package’s release follows a record-setting shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security that began after the two parties were unable to reach a compromise on new guardrails for immigration operations after federal agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January.  

The Judiciary Committee’s bill includes $30.725 billion for ICE, $3.47 billion for Customs and Border Protection and $1.457 billion for the Department of Justice.

The bill from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs allocates $19.1 billion for CBP to hire Border Patrol staff and $7.45 billion for ICE to hire Homeland Security Investigations agents.

CPB will receive an additional $3.45 billion to purchase new technology “to combat the entry or exit of illicit narcotics at ports of entry,” to upgrade border surveillance technology and to conduct initial screenings of unaccompanied children. 

Another $2.5 billion would go to the Homeland Security secretary for any additional border security needs. 

All of the funding would last through Sept. 30, 2029.

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Rand Paul, R-Ky., said in a statement the panel plans to vote later this month to advance the bill. 

“Senate Democrats refuse to vote for a single dollar to secure our borders or enforce our immigration laws, even against the most violent illegal aliens,” Paul said. 

60 votes not needed in Senate

Republicans plan to pass the bill using the same complex budget reconciliation process they used last year to enact their “big, beautiful” law that provided DHS with $170 billion. 

GOP lawmakers voted last month to approve the budget resolution that unlocks the process that comes with many rules and restrictions but avoids the need to get 60 votes in the Senate to end debate. 

Senate Republican leaders chose to separate funding for ICE and Border Patrol from the annual Homeland Security appropriations bill after the two political parties made little progress toward restrictions on immigration agents. 

The stalemate led to a 76-day shutdown for the Department of Homeland Security, which ended in late April after the House sent Trump the annual funding bill the Senate had approved a month earlier.

While the latest entry to seek the Democratic nomination in Wisconsin’s crowded 1st Congressional District primary contest is highlighting a promise to raise more money than his rivals, another candidate is making the opposite case for his own campaign.

Adam Follmer, a suburban Milwaukee speech pathologist, has set a $10,000 cap his campaign spending.

“I’m playing to win in this campaign, but I think more than anything I’m playing to shift the Overton window a little bit more to things that we can talk about,” Follmer said in an interview. “We can actually think about what are our elections going to look like when we do get money out of politics.”

His campaign website stands apart from those of other Democrats in the race because it doesn’t have an opening splash screen soliciting donations.

It’s different in other ways as well. He said he’s trying to use his website to model “sustainable politics” — there’s even a page with that name — and in presenting the issues that he is campaigning on, Follmer has a series of videos that he’s encouraging visitors on the site to share.

“I’m hoping to appeal to people that are just tired of the endless attacks, the endless calls, the door knocking of people that they don’t even know, and instead change the way we engage in politics, and have that message come from people we know and trust,” Follmer said.

The winner of the Democratic primary will face incumbent U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, who has a campaign fund exceeding $5 million and remains the favorite in the race, according to political oddsmakers.

Follmer’s platform in the campaign includes getting money completely out of politics, banning corporate political action committee donations and donations from lobbyists. He also favors ranked-choice voting and term limits in the U.S. House and Senate.

Some have criticized term limits for increasing the power and influence of lobbyists as the lawmakers in office turn over more often. Follmer, however, argues that the federal government should increase the employment of researchers and experts who “are supposed to help [lawmakers] understand the issues,” and severely restrict or eliminate paid lobbyists in return.

“The idea that a corporation can have the same voice as an actual voter is something that’s never sat right with me, and I don’t understand why that’s the norm,” he said.

Follmer also favors a wealth tax on fortunes over $50 million along with closing corporate tax loopholes; single-payer health care available to all; expanded public and affordable housing and rental assistance; and a series of worker supports including guaranteed universal child care, paid parental leave and a shift to a 32-hour work week without reducing weekly incomes.

Workforce training, fully funded public education, well-paid teachers, modernizing of infrastructure with a focus on addressing climate change and ensuring that publicly funded research is made open access round out his platform.

Follmer says his goal is to connect with 20,000 people in the district of more than 700,000 voters, either face-to-face or through his website, where he has installed a platform that visitors can use to communicate directly with him.  

The way politics is practiced currently, “we don’t have any infrastructure for us to actually communicate with our elected representatives in a meaningful way,” Follmer said.

He hopes that by reaching people more directly, they’ll in turn share his information with their friends and neighbors, building support for his campaign.

While Follmer said that he has often lined up with groups such as the progressive Justice Democrats and the Working Families Party on many of his policy proposals, he  initially launched his campaign in mid-2025 as an independent candidate, planning to skip the primary in August and wind up on the 1st CD ballot in November.

“What I was hoping for with the independent candidacy was that I could get people that voted for Trump in 2024 to realize there actually are candidates representing working class values, and that we could get those people to change,” he said. 

But in talking to voters, “I got a lot of feedback from the community that they didn’t want to see an independent candidate,” Follmer said, because they worried that the vote against Steil would wind up being divided, returning the incumbent to office even if there’s a majority in opposition.

“I want to be the kind of candidate that listens to the constituents,” he said. “And so I made that decision recently to change to the Democratic side and ride out the primary that way.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Supreme Court’s new decision gutting a key provision of the federal Voting Rights Act clears the way for state officials to drastically reshape not only Congress but also state legislatures, county commissions, city councils and even local school boards.

The ruling, released last week in a case called Louisiana v. Callais, dismantled some of the final guardrails protecting the electoral power of Black, Hispanic and other racial minority voters that had been enshrined in the Voting Rights Act, a landmark 1965 federal civil rights law that bars racial discrimination in voting access.

The 6-3 decision all but nullifies a provision called Section 2 that required states to draw electoral maps to give racial minority voters the opportunity to elect their chosen candidates.

And while intense national attention on the case’s fallout has focused on the U.S.  House as the 2026 midterm congressional elections loom, the new ruling also applies to state legislative districts and maps for county or municipal elections.

Those localized changes are just hovering further down the road.

“While everyone has been focusing on what this means for the power in Congress, there’s a whole other sector of power that it changes,” said Davante Lewis, an elected member of the Louisiana Public Service Commission and one of the litigants in a case that pushed Louisiana to create the congressional maps that were eventually struck down in the Callais ruling.

“This is a decision on who gets to serve on a school board, who gets to serve on a city council, who gets representation in the judiciary,” Lewis said.

Electoral maps are typically redrawn every 10 years after a census, but the Trump administration has encouraged Republican-led states to redraw districts to favor the GOP, a controversial move that has prompted some Democratic-led states to retaliate with gerrymandering of their own.

“But after 2030, I think we’re definitely going to see the impact of the Callais decision at the state level,” said Travis Crum, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis whose research focuses on voting rights, race and federalism.

Effects across the South

Critics of the ruling say it will fundamentally dilute the voting and governing power of Black and other minority citizens up and down the ballot, particularly in the South. There, many of the seats held by Black elected officials are in so-called opportunity districts that were created after the Voting Rights Act to allow Black and other minority voters to elect their preferred candidates.

“On the congressional level, we’re in this race to the bottom of redistricting, but when it comes to the state legislative level, we’ll have to wait and see,” Crum said.

In 10 state legislatures across the South, Republicans could gain more than 190 seats currently held by Democrats, most of them Black representatives in majority-minority districts, according to an analysis released in December by voting rights groups Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund. At the federal level, one analysis from The New York Times found that Democrats stand to lose a dozen U.S. House seats across the South.

In the hours after the Supreme Court ruling, Republicans across the nation began calling for maps to be redrawn, particularly in states where courts had forced them to create districts where Black or other racial minorities made up the majority of residents.

A US Supreme Court ruling hammered voting rights. What does it mean and what happens now?

“These lines should all be colorblind. You should never be basing a decision on race,” said Arizona Republican state Sen. Warren Petersen, who’s president of the state Senate and running for attorney general.

He told Stateline he believes both congressional and state legislative maps should be redrawn in Arizona — even if it takes litigation.

Mississippi Republican Gov. Tate Reeves called a special legislative session set for later this month, when he wants lawmakers to draw new election maps for Mississippi state Supreme Court districts. A federal judge in Mississippi will have to quickly decide whether to adopt a new map for some special elections scheduled for November.

Democrats, too, took action. In Illinois, lawmakers backtracked on a proposed constitutional amendment that would have directed lawmakers to consider race in drawing district lines, a provision taken directly from the Voting Rights Act. Instead, Illinois Senate President Don Harmon, a Democrat, told Capitol News Illinois that lawmakers want to learn more about the ruling before putting such an amendment on a ballot for voters to decide, to prevent unintended consequences that could undermine voting rights.

In many states, Republicans are focusing first on congressional redistricting. Louisiana Republican Gov. Jeff Landry postponed his state’s U.S. House primaries even though absentee voting has already begun. In Alabama, Republican Gov. Kay Ivey called a special state legislative session aiming to move the state’s May 19 primary in at least a handful of districts. Prominent Georgia Republicans were also calling for their state’s political maps to be redrawn, though GOP Gov. Brian Kemp said in a statement that it’s too late to do that this year.

And in North Dakota, the ruling leaves a tribal redistricting case in limbo. Tribes had used Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to sue the state over a legislative district map the North Dakota legislature approved in 2021.

Gerrymandering for partisan advantage is legal at the federal level, though some states do have their own laws restricting or prohibiting it. In Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is arguing the Supreme Court ruling invalidates voter-approved amendments that prevent the state from gerrymandering districts based on race or political party.

For most states, though, state officials can redraw maps explicitly to favor Republican voters, for example, so long as they don’t state their intention to disadvantage voters based on race.

‘Ripple like wildfire’

Critics of last week’s Callais ruling also worry it will rapidly erode the pipeline that has made it possible for Black and other minority candidates to get elected to office.

“Now, state legislatures can draw maps where they are picking their voters instead of their voters picking them,” said Lewis, the Louisiana commissioner. “They can dilute the power of Black and brown people serving in the state legislature, which means there’s fewer people to fight a congressional map” that pulls voting power away from minority communities.

He worries that if Black Democratic state lawmakers oppose their white Republican colleagues in legislatures with GOP majorities, those colleagues could redraw maps to eliminate the Black lawmakers’ seats, claiming they’re doing it only for partisan reasons.

The diluting of minority voting power, he said, “is going to ripple like wildfire.”

At the most local level, city councils and county boards typically draw those voting maps, but the ruling could be used to apply to them as well, said Crum, the law professor. 

Arizona is one of a handful of states where an independent commission, rather than the state legislature, determines both congressional and legislative districts. Outside of a court order, it can’t convene before the turn of the decade.

Petersen, the Arizona state senator, said he’s prepared to litigate if the state’s redistricting commission doesn’t take action to redraw districts that he said are unconstitutionally drawn. He doesn’t expect new maps before 2028, though.

“We’ve heard complaints from constituents that they don’t like the way their district was drawn,” he said. “We have some people here in Arizona that represent completely far-flung areas.

“I do think you’ll get a better outcome on some of these legislative districts” by removing race-based districting, he said.

Lawmakers in some states have tried to guard against the loss of federal protections by introducing their own state-level voting rights bills. Ten states have their own versions of the federal Voting Rights Act, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Virginia and Washington.

Lawmakers in at least 10 other states have introduced such bills this year alone: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Vermont.

The new Supreme Court ruling doesn’t render those laws unconstitutional, said Crum.

“But people who are seeking to undermine those state Voting Rights Acts are certainly going to rely on some of the themes” of the recent ruling, Crum said. “You might see them try and replicate some of the moves the court made.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct that Maryland has a state-level voting rights law, which was enacted last week.

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

Americans’ views on crime often don’t match reality — and a new report suggests those perceptions are shaped as much by personal experiences and economic conditions as by crime itself.

The analysis, released by the nonprofit think tank Council on Criminal Justice, draws on decades of Gallup survey data to examine how people perceive crime and what drives those beliefs. The report’s authors found that, since the 1960s, public perceptions of crime have frequently diverged from actual crime trends.

Even during periods when crime declined, most Americans continued to believe it was rising. From 2005 to 2024, about 69% of survey respondents on average said crime was higher than the year before, despite overall crime rates falling in most of those years, according to the report.

Fear of crime has remained relatively stable over time. In 2024, 35% of Americans said they were afraid to walk alone at night — the same share as in 1968.

The researchers found that public concern tends to track major shifts in homicide rates more closely than broader crime trends. But overall, people’s views about crime and their fear of it have not matched shifts in crime rates for most years, according to the report.

Instead, the analysis points to other factors that shape how Americans think about public safety.

Household victimization — whether someone in the home has been a victim of a crime — was one of the strongest predictors of both fear and the belief that crime is increasing. 

Property crimes, such as theft, and people’s own experiences with crime were more closely tied to concerns about the issue than actual violent crime rates.

Economic sentiment also played a role. People who said it was a good time to find a job or expected to spend the same or more on holiday shopping were less likely to say crime was rising and less likely to report fear of walking alone at night, according to the report.

Political views showed a more limited effect. While people with more conservative ideologies were somewhat more likely to perceive crime as increasing, political party affiliation itself was not a significant factor after accounting for economic conditions and other variables.

Higher presidential and congressional approval ratings were associated with a greater likelihood that respondents said crime was staying the same or declining, according to the report.

Local conditions, meanwhile, were more closely linked to personal fears than to perceptions of crime overall. The researchers found that neighborhood factors, such as poverty and youth population, were associated with whether people said they were afraid, but did not generally influence whether they believed crime was rising locally or nationally.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

The high-profile beer brand owner and political fundraiser Kirk Bangstad is entering the race for Wisconsin governor — a move he hinted at last year before putting it off.

Bangstad, who has been an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump and state Republican politicians, announced his intention to seek the Democratic nomination over the weekend at a rally outside his Minocqua craft beer brewery.

In an email newsletter Sunday from a Substack account he operates, Bangstad told subscribers he was running “because I believe Wisconsin needs a battle-hardened fighter to join the rest of America to save our Democracy from Trump’s regime, and that person doesn’t exist in the crowded field of Democrats currently running in Wisconsin’s Gubernatorial primary.”

The newsletter included a screenshot from the Wisconsin Ethics Commission’s website showing an account registered for his campaign for governor. The account was not visible at the commission’s website Monday. Commission administrator Daniel Carlton Jr. said in an email message that campaign accounts do not become publicly visible until they have been reviewed by the commission’s staff.

Bangstad, who ran for Congress in 2016, has sold a variety of beers bearing politically themed names honoring Gov. Tony Evers, Sen. Tammy Baldwin and others. He’s also promoted a promise of free beer when Trump dies.

He operates a SuperPAC that has funded advertising promoting Democratic candidates and attacking Republicans, as well lawsuits against Wisconsin’s school choice program and accusing congressional Republicans of enabling the Jan. 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol attack that delayed certification of the 2020 presidential election that Joe Biden won. He also sued unsuccessfully to keep Trump off of the Wisconsin ballot in 2024.

Bangstad said in his newsletter that Democrats already running didn’t take seriously his demand for “an election protection plan, because I believed deep in my heart that Trump’s regime would unleash an ‘October surprise’ that would try to steal elections across the country and keep his goons in control of Congress.”

The Saturday rally was initially billed as a free speech event in response to Bangstad’s interview by Secret Service and FBI agents Thursday.

The interview followed a  social media post Bangstad made on April 25, shortly after the shooting upstairs from the White House correspondents dinner that Trump attended. Cole Tomas Allen, accused of crashing a security checkpoint with a shotgun, is being held on charges that included attempting to assassinate Trump. On Facebook that night, Bangstad declared, “Well, we almost got #freebeerday. Either a brother or sister in the Resistance needs to work on their marksmanship or he faked another assassination to get a positive news cycle.”

Republican campaigns jumped on the post, accusing Bangstad of calling for Trump’s assassination. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin issued a statement condemning the comment as well.

In a newsletter May 1 promoting his rally, Bangstad described the post as “satirical” and suggested federal authorities targeted him for “wondering publicly whether Trump’s assassination attempt was staged.”

In October, Bangstad floated the possibility of running for governor. He argued that “fascism is already here in America and must be stopped” in an Oct. 12 Substack post. “I’ve not heard a single candidate talk about what he or she will do to protect us.”

Bangstad wrote then that he was tempted to run on his history of battling conservative Republicans in court. “But that’s just narcissism rearing its ugly head,” he added. He vowed instead to compile a list of “most egregious votes” in Congress by U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the expected Republican nominee in the governor’s race, and spend money from his Super PAC on ads about “all the lies he’s told in service to Trump, and the harm he’s done to Wisconsinites.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Federal agencies say they have yet to take steps to implement President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting voting by mail, as the Department of Justice fights a Democrat-led lawsuit against it.

The Justice Department late Friday filed documents asking a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit and to not block the executive order on a preliminary basis because the order hasn’t been implemented. The filings marked the Trump administration’s first effort to defend the order in court.

The March 31 order directs the creation of state citizenship lists and restricts how ballots can be sent through the mail, instructions that Democrats and election experts have called unconstitutional and illegal. It comes as Trump has seized on the specter of noncitizen voting, an extremely rare phenomenon, to demand sweeping voting restrictions.

In its Friday filing, the Justice Department sought to persuade Judge Carl J. Nichols in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia that a legal challenge is premature.

“If and when the Executive Branch takes some action to implement the Executive Order” then a lawsuit can be brought, Stephen Pezzi, a senior trial counsel in the Justice Department’s Civil Division, wrote in a court filing.

Nichols has scheduled a hearing for May 14.

No action taken, officials tell court

The DOJ’s argument relies on statements by key federal officials that the agencies affected by the order — the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Postal Service — are still deliberating over how to carry out Trump’s directive. In declarations filed in court on Friday, officials at all three agencies say final decisions haven’t been made.

“As the Postal Service is still in the deliberation phase of determining how to implement the Executive Order, we have not yet published a proposed rule, nor have we reached any final decisions about the substance of a proposed rule,” Steven Monteith, the Postal Service’s chief customer and marketing officer, wrote.

The executive order directs the postmaster general, who leads the Postal Service, to propose a rule that would block states from sending ballots through the mail except to voters on lists provided by the state to the Postal Service. 

The order also instructs Homeland Security to compile lists of voting-age U.S. citizens in each state with the help of the Social Security Administration. Democrats allege the Trump administration is building an unauthorized national voter list, despite the U.S. Constitution giving states the responsibility of running federal elections.

Michael Mayhew, deputy associate director of the Immigration Records and Identity Services Directorate within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, wrote in a declaration that the agency “has not yet begun preparation” of state citizenship lists. USCIS is a subsidiary of Homeland Security.

At the Social Security Administration, Jessica Burns MacBride, head of program policy and data exchange, wrote that the agency hasn’t made any final decisions “about its role” in implementing the executive order.

Focus on Postal Service

The order’s opponents are especially watching the Postal Service’s response, since it is an independent corporation overseen by its Board of Governors — not the White House.

Democrats and experts on postal law say Trump has no authority to order the postmaster general to take any action. The Board of Governors hires and fires the postmaster general, and board members serve seven-year terms, helping insulate them from political pressure.

Last month, 37 Democratic U.S. senators signed a letter to Postmaster General David Steiner and the Board of Governors urging the Postal Service to not implement the executive order. The senators pointed out the president has no authority to regulate federal elections or the Postal Service.

“Like the President, the Postal Service has no authority to regulate the manner of voting in federal elections, nor who is eligible to vote by mail in such elections,” the letter says.

The Postal Service is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed by Democratic groups and leaders in Congress. 

The Justice Department, which is representing the Postal Service, sidestepped questions about the president’s authority in Friday’s court filing. It called arguments about Trump’s authority over the Postal Service an “abstract legal question” that can’t be resolved before the agency takes action.

Still, Monteith appeared to nod to concerns within the Postal Service over the order’s legality while avoiding specifics.

“I am aware that deliberations are currently ongoing within the Postal Service regarding the implementation of the Executive Order,” Monteith wrote, adding that the deliberations include “legal considerations” regarding the order.

Unitary executive theory

The executive order faces at least five lawsuits, including a challenge brought by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general led by California’s Rob Bonta. The Justice Department has not yet filed court documents defending the order in that case.

For their part, Republican attorneys general — led by Catherine Hanaway of Missouri — are defending the executive order. Their position, if adopted by courts, would give Trump sweeping control over the Postal Service.

In a May 1 court filing, the GOP attorneys general argue those challenging the executive order are unlikely to succeed in showing that Trump cannot direct the Postal Service to propose a rule. They say that federal law doesn’t specifically prohibit the president from ordering the postmaster general to put forward rules on mail ballots — and it’s unconstitutional if it does.

“The Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President,” The Republican coalition says, articulating a view commonly called the unitary executive theory: the idea that Congress cannot constitutionally create agencies that exist outside of White House control.

The Republican states involved also include Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas.

Democrats and many constitutional law experts reject the unitary executive theory, though it has gained support among Trump-aligned Republicans as the White House seeks greater control over independent agencies.

If the U.S. Supreme Court eventually greenlights Trump’s efforts to control the Postal Service and other independent agencies, it would mark a “tremendous” change in how the federal government operates, James Campbell Jr., an attorney in the Washington, D.C., area who consults on postal law, said in an interview last month.

“What you’re basically talking about is redesigning the U.S. government,” Campbell said.

WASHINGTON — Americans saw prices at the pump sharply rise in recent days as the nationwide average cost for a gallon of regular gas shot up 38 cents over the past week, according to GasBuddy.

The motor club AAA clocked the average price of regular gas at $4.46 per gallon and diesel at $5.64, as Iran and the U.S. remain at a stalemate over opening the Strait of Hormuz, where one-fifth of the world’s petroleum passed through prior to the war.

“Gasoline prices rose in every state over the last week, with some of the most significant and fastest increases concentrated in the Great Lakes, where states like Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois saw sharp spikes, while Wisconsin experienced more modest gains,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said in a statement Monday. 

“At the same time, diesel prices surged to new records in parts of the region, with some areas touching the $6-per-gallon mark,” he added.

De Haan said refinery outages drove prices up, but other factors like Middle East oil output and President Donald Trump’s plan to free oil tankers stuck in the Persian Gulf could help.

“However, with so many moving pieces, the outlook remains highly fluid, and while some localized relief may emerge, broader price volatility is likely to persist in the near term,” he said.

Trump’s approval ratings, particularly on everyday costs, are sinking. About two-thirds of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the cost of living, and 66% disapprove of the president’s handling of the Iran war, according to a Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll published Sunday. 

Trump’s overall disapproval of 62% was the highest the survey recorded since he first took office in 2017.

The nationwide average for a gallon of regular gas was $4.10 one month ago. Last year at this time, it was $3.16, according to AAA.

Brent crude oil, the international standard, jumped to $114.90 a barrel Monday, the second-highest price jump since Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022.

During a small business summit at the White House on Monday, Trump said the war “is working out very nicely.”

“They thought that energy would be at $300 right, $300 a barrel. And it’s like at 100 and I think going down,” Trump said, incorrectly describing the current trend in prices. “And I see it going down very substantially when this is over.”

Navy escorts through strait

Trump on Sunday announced “Project Freedom,” an operation to guide cargo ships and oil tankers through the strait with the guidance of the U.S. Navy.

The “humanitarian gesture,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, is “merely meant to free up people, companies, and Countries that have done absolutely nothing wrong — They are victims of circumstance.”

Some 20,000 merchant ship crew members have been stranded in the Persian Gulf during the ongoing war, according to United Nations estimates at the end of March.

Trump threatened that Iran would “be dealt with forcefully” if they interfered with the operation.

As of Monday, U.S. Central Command said two U.S.-flagged merchant ships had been escorted through the strait. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps disputed the claim as “baseless and completely false,” according to a statement reported by Iranian state media.

“Any other maritime movements that contradict the stated principles of the IRGC Navy will face serious risks, and any violating vessels will be forcefully stopped,” the statement read.

War continues

The IRGC also claimed to have hit two U.S. military vessels in the strait Monday, a claim categorically denied by U.S. Central Command.

U.S. Central Command’s Admiral Brad Cooper told reporters on a press call Monday that the IRGC launched multiple cruise missiles and drones at merchant ships that “we are protecting.” 

“We have defeated each and every one of those threats through the clinical application of defensive munitions,” he told reporters. 

U.S. Apache and Seahawk helicopters sank six small Iranian boats Monday, according to Cooper.

The United Arab Emirates defense ministry reported Monday it was intercepting Iranian missiles and drones over various parts of the country. Iran’s air strikes on its U.S. ally neighbors have largely quieted in recent weeks.

U.K. Maritime Trade Organization, which reports on security conditions, has kept the strait’s regional threat level as “critical.”

Trump said Saturday he was reviewing a new deal from Iran to end the war. Talks have failed since the U.S. and Iran announced a tenuous ceasefire on April 7.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary stay on an appeals court ruling from Friday that was blocking remote access to an abortion drug, restoring access until at least May 11.

The administrative stay, issued by Justice Samuel Alito, pauses Friday’s decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That ruling blocked a 2023 rule adopted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowing mifepristone, one of two drugs used to terminate a pregnancy before 10 weeks and to treat miscarriages, to be prescribed without an in-person visit with a health care provider and also allowed it to be mailed to recipients in states with abortion bans.

“The administrative stay is temporary, and I am confident life and law will win in the end,” said Louisiana Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill in a statement. 

Thirteen states have near-total abortion bans, including Louisiana. Murrill sued the FDA in October, saying the rule undermines the state’s laws and causes financial harm because the state paid $92,000 in Medicaid bills for two women who needed emergency care in 2025 from complications related to mifepristone. 

In the years since the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing states to regulate abortion access, telehealth prescriptions of abortion medication have become increasingly popular, with more than 27% of all abortions provided that way in 2025, according to data from the Society of Family Planning.

“While this is a positive short-term development, no one can rest easy when our ability to get this safe, effective medication for abortion and miscarriage care still hangs in the balance,” said Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the Reproductive Freedom Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement. “The Supreme Court needs to put an end to this baseless attack on our reproductive freedom, once and for all.”

The case could follow a similar pattern to one that played out in 2023, after U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas issued a ruling that would have revoked access to the abortion drug mifepristone altogether. 

The U.S. Supreme Court intervened shortly after that ruling and kept mifepristone available while the case proceeded in the 5th Circuit appeals court, which eventually decided that more restrictions were warranted, but not pulling the drug’s approval. The Supreme Court officially took the case several months later, and unanimously ruled in June 2024 that the plaintiffs suing the FDA did not have standing, keeping access to mifepristone intact.

Responses from the attorneys in the latest case are expected to be filed with the Supreme Court by Thursday, according to Alito’s order.

Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org.

WASHINGTON — The State Department must spend the $600 million Congress approved for an international vaccine program, according to a letter sent Monday by a bipartisan group of U.S. senators.

The six senior members of the Appropriations Committee, three Republicans and three Democrats, called on Secretary of State Marco Rubio to fulfill the government’s “pledge” to GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance.

“GAVI plays a critical role in averting the spread of preventable diseases around the globe and helps protect public health in our country by stopping outbreaks before they reach our borders,” the senators wrote. “Congressional support for GAVI endures because of its proven success as a public-private partnership, immunizing more than 1.1 billion children – and in turn preventing 20.6 million deaths – since its inception in 2000.”

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine; ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash.; State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., all signed the letter.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, didn’t sign the letter. 

A State Department spokesperson wrote in an email the department doesn’t “comment on congressional correspondence.” 

Senators wrote in the letter that GAVI “supports U.S. industry and jobs, purchasing more than $12.5 billion in U.S.-manufactured goods and vaccines.”

“It is the world’s leading purchaser of U.S.-produced vaccines and hosts the U.S.-founded global vaccine stockpile,” the senators wrote. “Additionally, vaccines funded through GAVI are approved through the same standards as used by the Food and Drug Administration.”

In the contest for the Democratic nomination for governor, “affordability” might be the most frequently used campaign watchword. Side-by-side with it is another word: Healthcare.

Healthcare “is one of the most broken systems in the whole of government,” says former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes. It’s “working as it was designed to,” says state Rep. Francesca Hong — in what is decidedly not a compliment to the system.

Among voters, it is “a top issue if not the top issue,” says Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley. Former Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. CEO Missy Hughes calls healthcare one of the “foundational pieces of our economy” — but one that is under strain and not working well.

For Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, it’s “a complicated system” in which she made a career as an  emergency room nurse, a CDC infectious disease officer and finally a health system executive — “which means that I know the levers that we can pull to try to reduce costs across the state of Wisconsin.”

Former Department of Administration Secretary Joel Brennan considers healthcare a leading Wisconsin asset, innovator and employer, but one that’s been hobbled by “the healthcare management that we are allowing to go on in this county — and it’s not helping.”

State Sen. Kelda Roys describes the healthcare system  as imbued with “the worst aspects of capitalism in that we’ve injected profits before patients at every step, but none of the benefits of capitalism — there’s no free market, there’s no real competition.”

Those remarks come from three forums in April at which the seven leading Democratic hopefuls fielded questions about their healthcare policies and priorities.

Four of them — Rodriguez, Barnes, Roys and Hong — took part in a forum hosted by HealthWatch Wisconsin that focused entirely on healthcare issues. (All seven were invited, according to HealthWatch, which is affiliated with the nonprofit public interest law firm ABC for Health).

All seven joined a Wisconsin Health News event focused entirely on healthcare as well as a Wisconsin Citizen Action online forum, where healthcare led off a discussion that covered a cross-section of other issues as well.

Many of the Democratic Party rivals’ policies and priorities overlap. They all agree that healthcare costs and access are among the most important priorities for the state.

All of them say they favor a public option for health insurance — a plan that would be available for people to purchase health coverage on the Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplace if they don’t have coverage through work and their incomes are too high to qualify them for Medicaid.

All but one of the seven propose to expand Medicaid, referred to as BadgerCare in Wisconsin, under the Affordable Care Act. Expansion would open the health insurance plan for low-income Wisconsinites with incomes above the current limit (100% of the federal poverty guideline) up to 138% of the guideline.

Roys is the exception, arguing that Medicaid expansion is no longer feasible in Wisconsin because of federal changes enacted after President Donald Trump took office.

Instead, Roys proposes a public option that would allow the public to buy into the state health insurance plan for public employees. Brennan also proposes using the public employees’ plan as a public option, but he favors Medicaid expansion as well.

Four of the other five Democrats would tie the public option to Medicaid expansion, making it possible for people whose incomes don’t qualify them for BadgerCare to pay a monthly health insurance premium for BadgerCare coverage. Rodriguez proposes a public option plan called “BadgerChoice,” which would be a state-based insurance plan but would not be connected to BadgerCare, according to her campaign. 

Four years after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a national right to abortion, all seven Democrats have vowed to protect reproductive healthcare and to firmly back abortion rights in Wisconsin.

All of them speak of the importance of ensuring that mental health is treated on a par with physical health. And all of them at least nod to the need to improve healthcare access in rural Wisconsin.

At the same time, each candidate’s proposals differ, sometimes in fine details, sometimes in broad priorities, and sometimes mostly rhetorically.

Federal relations

Another point of general agreement is on the need for stronger support for public health measures. All of the Democratic candidates have criticized the Trump administration and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for undermining longstanding support for vaccination against communicable diseases.

But they take different directions in their expectations for federal-state relations in healthcare. Roys, for example, writes off federal assistance during the current administration, which is why she considers expanding Medicaid a dead issue for now. Crowley’s Medicaid expansion proposal explicitly refers to federal matching funds to cover some of the costs.

None have laid out the level of detail that will be required for turning their ideas into legislation or incorporating them into the next state budget.

This report has been updated to clarify that the “BadgerChoice” proposal from Sara Rodriguez is not connected with Medicaid Expansion. 

In the gallery below, click on the caption of each candidate’s picture to read a summary of what that candidate has said and published about their approach to healthcare policy and links to relevant pages on the candidate’s campaign website. 

Early voting for the May 16 election began Saturday with confusion over whether all the races listed on the ballot are still taking place. 

Even motivated voters who showed up within the first few hours said they weren’t quite sure whether the U.S. House elections were still happening. 

“I went ahead and voted for who I wanted to vote for. If they don’t count it, that’s their problem,” said Betty Powers, who has participated in every election since 1968, outside an East Baton Rouge Parish polling location. 

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry suspended the U.S. House races Thursday, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Louisiana’s House district map unconstitutional. 

Republican Secretary of State Nancy Landry, who is not related to the governor, has said votes cast in Louisiana’s U.S. House races won’t be counted. But that didn’t deter several early voters from picking a House candidate on their ballot anyway. 

“Something is delayed … but I don’t know if it affects East Baton Rouge Parish or not,” said Valerie Amato, who wore a shirt with the picture of President Donald Trump and the slogan ‘I’m still here’ to her polling location. She said she voted for a U.S. House candidate out of habit. 

Mail-in ballots with U.S. House races listed had already been sent out by the time the governor declared the election was off. Nancy Landry’s office also didn’t have enough notice to remove the affected candidates’ names from the ballots before in-person voting started. 

“[The House race] was still on there, so we voted for it,” said Evan Delahaye, a Baton Rouge resident who voted early with his brother.

“I am worried we’re going to have to vote twice,” he added. 

Pressure from the president

Gov. Landry’s move to postpone an election for a reason other than a natural disaster or health crisis is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, in Louisiana. 

The state has proceeded with U.S. House races after federal courts declared the voting districts unconstitutional in the past, most recently in 2022. Previously, officials agreed it was too close to the elections to change the map, and that new districts could wait until the following cycle two years later. 

But Landry and other Republican officials insist the Supreme Court decision from Wednesday is so sweeping in nature that it demands the aggressive action of calling off an election, even when absentee voting was already underway.

Trump is also putting pressure on GOP elected officials across the country to create as many Republican-leaning districts in Congress as possible before the end of the year to ensure the party maintains its advantage in the House.

The Supreme Court declared Louisiana’s current House map unconstitutional because it said state officials relied too heavily on the race of voters to draw its district boundaries. As a result, Landry and Republican legislators are expected to create a new map that would eliminate one, or both, of the state’s majority-Black districts. 

Calling off the current elections allows the governor and Republican state lawmakers to draw up new, more conservative U.S. House districts sooner.

A flurry of lawsuits have been filed in federal and state court attempting to stop the governor’s actions and keep Louisiana’s House races moving forward. So far, none have been successful, but more court decisions could be handed down in the next few days. 

In light of that uncertainty, U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican whose contentious reelection campaign is on the same ballot, was among those who chose to still pick a candidate in a House race when he went to early vote this week. 

Cassidy said he wasn’t convinced a court would uphold Landry’s decision to call off the election and wanted to vote just in case.

The senator said he agreed with the Supreme Court ruling on the U.S. House districts, but he was uncomfortable with the decision to cancel those races less than 48 hours before early voting began.

“The way that the election has transpired, that has almost treated the voter with disrespect,” Cassidy said in an interview with reporters. “That’s confusing to voters … We should be serving the voter, not politicians.”

 

Louisiana is not experiencing ordinary political turbulence. We are watching democratic instability unfold in real time.

Within a matter of days, voters across this state have been forced to absorb three major disruptions at once: the dismantling of Black voting representation through the ruling in Louisiana v. Callais; the suspension of congressional primary elections already in progress; and a statewide constitutional amendment that could fundamentally reshape public education in East Baton Rouge Parish and beyond.

The timing could not be more critical. Election Day is May 16. Early voting began Saturday. Absentee ballots have already been distributed. Yet Gov. Jeff Landry’s executive order suspended Louisiana’s closed party congressional primaries after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the state’s congressional map. 

Voters are now left in a vacuum of information, told that congressional races will still appear on their ballots, but that their votes in these contests won’t count.

That should alarm every person in this state, regardless of party affiliation.

A democracy cannot function when election rules shift after the machinery of voting has already begun moving. This creates confusion and distrust precisely when public confidence is most fragile. 

Black communities, in particular, understand the historical weight of sudden procedural changes in elections. Louisiana does not get to separate this moment from that history.

This erosion of collective representation is not limited to the ballot box. It is also manifesting in the very structure of our local institutions. 

On the May 16 ballot voters are being asked to decide on Constitutional Amendment 2, which would formally recognize the St. George Community School System with independent authority to receive state funding and raise local revenues though taxes.

When coupled with its implementing legislation, the amendment mandates the transfer of public school lands, facilities and assets from the East Baton Rouge Parish School System to the new St. George system by June 30, 2027. Reports indicate that East Baton Rouge schools could lose roughly $100 million if this separation proceeds.

This is bigger than one city, one amendment or one election cycle. This is about fragmentation: the fragmentation of voting rights, public education and, ultimately, public trust. The people most harmed by this fracturing are always the communities with the fewest resources to absorb the blow: Black families, working-class families, disabled residents and children already navigating underfunded schools.

Supporters of these measures frame them as issues of local control or administrative necessity. But language matters less than outcomes. When systems repeatedly reorganize power away from collective accountability and toward isolated control structures, inequity expands. History has shown us this repeatedly.

The most dangerous part is how normalized this chaos is becoming. Louisianans are being conditioned to accept government by disruption. Maps change overnight, elections pause midstream, public assets become bargaining chips. 

That is not healthy governance. That is democratic erosion dressed in procedural language.

The people of Louisiana deserve clarity before elections begin, not after. They deserve stable representation and public institutions designed to serve communities rather than divide them into competing islands of power. Because once citizens begin believing their vote is conditional, their schools are negotiable, and their representation is disposable, democracy itself begins to fracture.

And fractured systems rarely fail equally.

Responding to President Donald Trump’s pressure, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee has called a special session to redraw the state’s U.S. House map as the party tries to eliminate the only Democratic-held seat in Memphis.

Lee is calling on state lawmakers to return to the state Capitol on May 5 to pass a new Tennessee U.S. congressional district map, less than two weeks after the state legislature wrapped its annual session.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that no longer requires Tennessee and other southern states to create majority-minority districts in their U.S. House and state legislature district maps.

Tennessee, with a Black population of around 16%, was previously required by the Voting Rights Act to draw at least one of its nine congressional districts as majority-minority, effectively helping Democrats hold on to a Memphis-based seat.

“We owe it to Tennesseans to ensure our congressional districts accurately reflect the will of Tennessee voters,” said Lee in a news release. “After consultation with the Lt. Governor, Speaker of the House, Attorney General, and Secretary of State, I believe the General Assembly has a responsibility to review the map and ensure it remains fair, legal, and defensible.”

Lawmakers need to move fast to change the maps before the 2026 midterm elections, as Tennessee’s Congressional primaries will be held on Aug. 6. The qualifying deadline to run in those elections has already passed, and campaigns are in full swing

Republicans currently hold an 8-1 advantage in congressional seats over Democrats. Tennessee is a Republican stronghold that Trump won with around 64% of the vote in 2024. But if party representation were equally distributed without gerrymandering, Democrats would likely hold two or three of the state’s U.S. House seats.

The Republican advantage is even stronger in the state legislature. Republicans control 75% of the state House seats and 81% of the state Senate.

Tennessee Republicans in 2022 were legally able to eliminate a Democratic-held seat in Nashville by splitting it across three congressional districts. This led Democrats to lose the 5th district seat, which the party had held since the end of the 1870s Reconstruction era.

Tennessee U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Republican running for governor this year, shared a photo on social media of a map showing the GOP winning all nine congressional districts by large margins.

The Lookout, using the nonpartisan Dave’s Redistricting, was able to replicate a similar map to the one Blackburn proposed, but not with the same margins she posted. Based on the 2024 Presidential election, Republicans could achieve a 9-0 outcome, essentially cracking Nashville and Memphis, but would shrink their margins in almost every district.

The map created by the Lookout shows nine districts where Republicans won 60% of the vote based on the 2024 Presidential election. But now six districts would have Republican advantages of less than 12 percentage points, compared to the current two.

Blackburn’s map appears to be based on the 2024 presidential election margin, not the Republican percentage of the vote over 50%, which is how nonpartisan organizations like Cook Political Report rate districts.

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com.

Massachusetts and Rhode Island are considering dropping GLP-1 drugs for obesity treatment from their Medicaid programs, continuing a trend of states that have stopped coverage of these expensive medications. 

Thirteen state Medicaid programs are covering GLP-1 drugs for the treatment of obesity this year, down from 16 last year. 

Medicaid programs in California, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and South Carolina have eliminated coverage of the drugs for weight loss, because the expense strained state budgets. 

In Massachusetts, the governor’s proposed fiscal 2028 budget would not fund the state’s Medicaid program, MassHealth, to cover GLP-1 medications for weight loss alone, though the state would continue covering the drugs for diabetes and other conditions. The legislature is still debating the state budget. 

Rhode Island’s governor also has proposed removing GLP-1 coverage from the state’s Medicaid program for weight loss treatment. 

North Carolina reinstated such coverage in mid-December after having dropped it in October. 

Medicaid programs in Delaware, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin also cover the drugs for obesity treatment, according to KFF, a health policy research group. 

But some states, such as Michigan, have restricted eligibility for these medications to morbidly obesity patients rather than those who are overweight or obese. The move is expected to save the state an estimated $240 million. 

Meanwhile, lawmakers in Louisiana are debating whether to allow Medicaid to cover GLP-1s for obesity treatment if enrollees have another chronic condition, or comorbidity, such as prediabetes, hypertension or cardiovascular disease.  

The medications generally have been too expensive for people without insurance. In February, one of the largest producers of these drugs, Novo Nordisk, announced it would reduce their list prices to $675 per month in 2027. 

Gross spending on Medicaid prescriptions for GLP-1s — for diabetes as well as for weight loss — has increased from around $1 billion in 2019 to almost $9 billion in 2024 as demand for these drugs has risen, according to KFF. 

At the same time almost 40% of adults and a quarter of children with Medicaid have obesity and may benefit from having access to the drugs, according to KFF. 

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

While the idea of a special tax on millionaires is hotly debated across the country, Maine state Rep. Cheryl Golek characterized her state’s new tax as a modest and reasonable step toward fairness.

That’s because, she said, working- and middle-class households in Maine — including teachers, firefighters and nurses — are paying effective state income tax rates similar to or higher than those of the highest earners.

“Those who benefit the most from our economy do so because of the people, infrastructure and communities that support that success,” said Golek, a Democrat. “Asking for a small additional contribution from the wealthiest in our state is a reasonable and widely supported step toward a fairer system.”

The legislation signed by Democratic Gov. Janet Mills this month will add a 2% tax to households whose income exceeds $1 million per year.

Maine and Washington, which enacted its own law last month, are among the latest Democratic-led states to ask for more tax dollars from the rich as national wealth inequality widens and states face heightened budget pressures. They follow the lead of other states including New Jersey and Massachusetts that have implemented specific taxes for the rich.

The idea is gaining traction as lawmakers in at least a dozen states, including Illinois, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Virginia, have proposed new taxes for the wealthiest taxpayers. In California, advocates this week announced they gathered enough signatures for a ballot initiative that would impose a one-time tax on billionaires. But these proposals often stir yearslong battles.

The taxes can take different forms — taxing annual incomes above a certain threshold or taxing capital assets, including high-value stocks and real estate. Earlier this month, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Gov. Kathy Hochul, both Democrats, proposed a new pied-à-terre tax for homes valued above $5 million when owners have a separate primary residence outside of New York City.

In neighboring New Jersey, those earning over $1 million per year face an income tax top rate of 10.75% in addition to a so-called mansion tax on the sales of high-value homes.

Proponents say these moves can help balance state tax structures that are tilted against lower earners. The left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy says the tax systems of 40 states favor the wealthiest earners. But opponents argue that these measures levy new taxes on business owners, dissuading local investment and encouraging rich residents to move away — especially risky during a time when many other states are slashing taxes.

“When the outlook of our population growth is stagnant and we should be attracting people to Maine, it puts a disincentive to people to call Maine home,” Patrick Woodcock, president and CEO of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, said during a news conference ahead of the state House vote on the tax.

The rising push to tax the wealthy in liberal states comes as some red states are moving to more regressive tax systems, which put a higher burden on lower earners.

“You increasingly have two poles where you have a larger number of states with fairly low income taxes and a smaller but still significant number of states that have doubled down on high rates, particularly high rates on high earners,” said Jared Walczak, senior fellow at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation.

He said increasing income taxes pushes wealthy people and employers to low-tax states. Even if individuals don’t directly move because of taxes, they follow businesses to other states, he said.

And some progressives are wary of going too far: California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is opposing the ballot initiative that would impose a one-time 5% tax on those whose net worth exceeds $1 billion. Hochul, who pushed for the new tax on second homes in New York City, has warned that more tax increases on the millionaires and billionaires could hollow out a crucial portion of the state’s tax base.

Walczak said only a handful of in-demand places can afford to impose higher taxes for the same reason that people pay higher rents.

“It’s worth it to a lot of people,” he said. “People are willing to pay very high rent, but there’s a limit. In the same way, they’re willing to pay higher taxes to live in New York, but there is a limit.”

Rising wealth inequality

The gap between the rich and poor has been widening for decades.

Wealth for the bottom fifth of American households has barely moved in recent decades, while the top 0.1% have seen their wealth increase by nearly $40 million each, according to an analysis by the anti-poverty nonprofit Oxfam America.

Between 1980 and 2022, the share of national income going to the top 1% doubled, while the share going to the bottom 50% fell by a third, Oxfam reported.

Recent federal policy changes have only exacerbated the need for progressive state tax changes, said Amber Wallin, executive director of the State Revenue Alliance, which is lobbying for higher taxes for the wealthy across multiple states.

President Donald Trump’s major tax and spending bill, often called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, slashed funds for safety net programs including food stamps and Medicaid. At the same time, it provided tax cuts that largely benefit the wealthy.

“So we know millions will lose access to healthcare, millions will lose food assistance, and states all across the country will see funding cuts for key programs,” she said. “We know that people power a strong economy, not tax cuts for the wealthy, and when the rich pay their fair share of taxes, we all benefit.”

Since Massachusetts voters in 2022 approved a 4% surtax on annual incomes above $1 million, that Fair Share Amendment has provided the commonwealth with $6 billion in transportation and education funding.

But Jim Stergios, executive director at the libertarian-leaning Pioneer Institute, said it’s not just the ultra-wealthy who are paying that tax. People who record a one-time sale of a business or a home can face the tax even if they’re not earning over $1 million every year, he said.

He said the tax is pushing residents out of the state and dampening business investment. Federal data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows Massachusetts lost more than 33,000 residents to other states last year, though Democratic Gov. Maura Healy noted the overall population did increase because of foreign immigration. Stergios noted lawmakers are still facing challenges balancing the state budget even with the new revenue.

“So over the long term, it’s not going to have a salutary effect,” he said. “We’re going to continue to have budget problems. We do have budget problems even with this.”

Proponents and opponents of the state’s millionaire’s tax have touted recent IRS data in their arguments: Residents leaving Massachusetts took a total of $4.2 billion in adjusted gross income with them in 2023, the first year of the new tax, Bloomberg reported. Yet the number of residents moving out of Massachusetts who reported income of $200,000 or more fell after the tax was implemented.

“There’s no real evidence of millionaire out-migration. I’m sure there’s some isolated anecdotes, but the actual data don’t show it,” said Phineas Baxandall, director of research and policy analysis at the left-leaning Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center.

He said one piece of evidence that the wealthy remain in Massachusetts are the proceeds of the tax itself, which are funding major priorities including free community college and expanding childcare subsidies for thousands.

“Massachusetts is rightfully fearful of the federal cuts that are happening,” Baxandall said, “but we’ve been able to still move forward with real, transformational investments.”

Multiyear efforts

Though interest in raising taxes on the rich is growing across the country, the idea faces considerable skepticism and often requires years of organizing.

In March, Michigan advocates announced they would suspend their campaign to put on the statewide ballot a 5% tax on individual incomes over $500,000 and joint incomes over $1 million.

“We always knew that we were going to face strong headwinds from billionaires who don’t want to pay their fair share,” Rachelle Crow-Hercher, president of the Invest in MI Kids steering committee, said in a statement to Michigan Advance. That coalition plans to eye the 2028 election cycle instead, she said.

Last week, Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch announced he would drop a push for a new millionaire’s tax as Democrats came up short of the necessary supermajority needed to put the issue on this fall’s ballot.

Welch believes the issue will come before lawmakers again, but after missing a key legislative deadline it won’t be eligible for a statewide vote until 2028. He said it remains popular among voters. Lawmakers proposed using proceeds of a new tax for schools and property tax relief.

“I believe that we should tax the rich and the rich should pay more,” he said. “To those who much is given, much is required.”

Meanwhile, the newly enacted Washington tax faces a lengthy, though expected, court challenge.

The legislation signed last month by Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson imposes a 9.9% tax on household income above $1 million a year. Opponents argue that income is property and thus must be taxed uniformly because of state constitutional requirements.

In addition to the constitutional concerns, Republican state Rep. Jim Walsh said the new law opens the door for lawmakers to eventually expand income taxes to more households — not just the rich. Instead of raising revenue, he said Democratic lawmakers should focus on cutting spending, noting the state operations budget has more than doubled in the past decade.

“The problem is not the financing mechanism of the state’s operations,” he said. “It’s the rate at which far-left advocates in the legislature have been increasing state government spending in the state. It’s ridiculous.”

To Democratic state Sen. Noel Frame, the legislation brings the state’s regressive tax code more in line with Washington’s progressive politics. With no statewide income tax, sales and property taxes leave lower income earners to cover more of the cost of state services, making Washington’s one of the nation’s most regressive tax systems.

“For all the things that we do that are good, big, bold economic policy — to have the tax code that we have is just an embarrassment, and it’s completely out of line with our values as a state,” Frame said.

Like the push for a $15 minimum wage started in liberal cities and states, Frame expects the millionaire tax movement will spread into more conservative areas.

Already, some conservative states, including Idaho, Indiana and Florida, have made moves to reject some of last year’s federal tax changes that benefit corporations and the wealthy.

“The people are demanding better,” Frame said. “And the more that people understand the deep connection of tax policy to income and wealth inequality, the more engaged they become.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.